Mass Destruction due to a war to find WMD - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Simple_Min · 05-24-2003, 07:10 PM

Well, this just sucks. Prepare for more terrorism, war hawks. Pretty convenient, huh? More terror = need/excuse to destroy more cultres = more terror...

Life goes full circle.

Quote:

from the May 22, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

Surveys pointing to high civilian death toll in Iraq
Preliminary reports suggest casualties well above the Gulf War.
By Peter Ford | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

BAGHDAD - Evidence is mounting to suggest that between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi civilians may have died during the recent war, according to researchers involved in independent surveys of the country.

None of the local and foreign researchers were willing to speak for the record, however, until their tallies are complete.

Such a range would make the Iraq war the deadliest campaign for noncombatants that US forces have fought since Vietnam.

Though it is still too early for anything like a definitive estimate, the surveyors warn, preliminary reports from hospitals, morgues, mosques, and homes point to a level of civilian casualties far exceeding the Gulf War, when 3,500 civilians are thought to have died.

"Thousands are dead, thousands are missing, thousands are captured," says Haidar Taie, head of the tracing department for the Iraqi Red Crescent in Baghdad. "It is a big disaster."

By one measure of violence against noncombatants, as compared with resistance faced by soldiers, the war in Iraq was particularly brutal. In Operation Just Cause, the 1989 US invasion of Panama, 13 Panamanian civilians died for every US military fatality. If 5,000 Iraqi civilians died in the latest war, that proportion would be 33 to 1.

US and British military officials insisted throughout the war that their forces did all they could to avoid civilian casualties. But it has become clear since the fighting ended that bombs did go astray, that targets were chosen in error, and that as US troops pushed rapidly north toward the capital they killed thousands of civilians from the air and from the ground.

There are no figures at all for Iraqi military casualties, which Iraqi officials kept secret. One factor that led to many civilian deaths, and which complicates the task of counting them accurately, is that irregular fedayeen militia hid in civilian homes as they fought advancing coalition troops, and dressed as civilians.

Nor are hospital records - kept in the heat of war under intense pressure on doctors and staff - necessarily accurate, some observers warn. That means they probably underestimate the real scale of civilian deaths, although at the same time they may have recorded some combatant casualties as civilian ones.

"We had some figures from hospital sources but we realized very quickly that they were very partial," says Nada Doumani, an official with the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad. "It is very difficult to keep track of everyone who was killed, and we were afraid the numbers could be misinterpreted, so we refrained from giving them out."

"During the war, some people brought bodies to the hospitals to get death certificates; others just buried them where they were found in the street, or in schools," adds Faik Amin Bakr, director of the Baghdad morgue. "I don't think anyone in Iraq could give you the figure of civilian deaths at the moment."

House-to-house survey
The chaos of the war and the confusion that persists in Iraq, where central government is still not functioning, have led one US human rights group with experience in counting civilian casualties in Afghanistan to launch a nationwide house-to-house survey of areas where fighting was fierce.

The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC) has mobilized 150 surveyors to carry out detailed interviews with victims of the war; recording deaths, injuries, and damage to property with a view to securing assistance from US government funds.

A full accounting could take months, says CIVIC coordinator Marla Ruzicka, and the group is still compiling its data. But its volunteers have already recorded more than 1,000 civilian deaths in the southern town of Nasariyah, and almost as many in the capital.

"In Baghdad, we have discovered 1,000 graves, and that is not the final figure," says Ali Ismail, a Red Crescent official. "Every day we discover more" where local residents say civilians were buried.

Researchers say they have found particularly high levels of civilian casualties along the Euphrates River, between Nasariyah and Najaf, where US Marines fought their way toward Baghdad.

"The biggest contrast between Afghan- istan (where an estimated 1,800 civilians died during the US-led campaign there in 2001) and Iraq is that Afghanistan was predominantly an air war and this was a ground/air battle," says Reuben Brigety, a researcher for Human Rights Watch.

"Air wars are not flawless, but if you have precision weapons you can do a lot to make them more accurate," he adds. "The same is not yet true of ground combat. It is clear the ground battle took a toll; ground war is nasty."

A focus on cluster bombs
Dr. Brigety and his colleagues in Baghdad say they are especially concerned by the wide use of cluster bombs during the war in Iraq.

They say they have found evidence of "massive use of cluster bombs in densely populated areas," according to Human Rights Watch researcher Marc Galasco, contradicting coalition claims that such munitions were used only in deserted areas.

Dispersing thousands of bomblets that shoot out shards of shrapnel over an area the size of a football field, such weapons become indiscriminate and thus illegal under the laws of war, if used in civilian neighborhoods, Human Rights Watch has argued during past conflicts.

"At one level it is unhelpful to talk about large or small numbers" of civilian casualties, says Brigety. "It is more important to ask if the deaths were preventable."

The combination of cluster-bomb use, inaccurate artillery fire at Iraqi troops concentrated near civilian areas, and street fighting in towns throughout Iraq means that the number of civilian deaths might be as high as 10,000, say two researchers from two different teams who asked not to be identified until the evidence was clearer.

Also waiting for clearer evidence are US government agencies mandated by Congress to assist civilian victims of the war in Iraq.

At the instigation of Sen. Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont, the Iraq war supplemental bill, signed by President Bush April 16, directs that an unspecified amount of the $2.4 billion appropriated for relief and reconstruction in Iraq should pay for "assistance for families of innocent Iraqi civilians who suffer losses as a result of military operations."

"Perhaps it is impossible to eliminate these kinds of mistakes, but you can do something for the victims after the fact," says Tim Rieser, an aide to Senator Leahy.

Mourning his children
But that is little comfort to Mahmoud Ali Hamadi. Hugging his 18-month-old son, Haidar, to his breast for comfort, he cannot hold back his sobs as he recounts how a US missile that landed by his front gate killed his wife and three elder children on the night of April 5.

"My children were the brightest in the whole school," he recalls, looking fondly at an old family photograph through his tears. "Eleven years I spent raising them, and in one instant I lost them."

Mr. Hamadi's family died in Rashidiya, a village of palm groves and vegetable plots on the banks of the Tigris, half an hour north of Baghdad.

Nearly 100 villagers were killed by US bombing and strafing on April 5, including 43 in one house, for reasons that they do not understand. "There was no military base here," says Hamadi. "We are not military personnel. This is just a peasant village."

The need to provide assistance
Civilian victims of US military action in Afghanistan - identified by a team led by Ruzicka - are also supposed to receive assistance. So far, however, USAID has not disbursed any of that money, citing security risks and other problems in the parts of Afghanistan where the money is meant to be spent.

"We have a responsibility to provide assistance, especially when we were the cause," says Mr. Rieser.

"It is in our interest to make the point that this was not a war against the Iraqi people," he says. Senator Leahy's hope, he adds, is that the aid will "build goodwill for the US, which seems to be shrinking by the day in Iraq."

That would appear to be a vain hope in the case of Hamadi, as he mourns the loss of his family. "The Americans are assassins," he says wearily, his face worn by grief. "I haven't complained to the Americans. What would I get if I complained to them? I have complained only to God."

Iraqi civilian deaths

• Nongovernmental and media organizations have produced widely varying figures on the number of Iraqi civilians killed during the recent conflict. The range is a result of incomplete, unconfirmable, and unavailable information.

• Iraqbodycount.net, a website that draws on media accounts and eyewitness reports, estimates that between 4,065 and 5,223 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of coalition military action, both during and after the war.

• A May 15 Associated Press report gives an estimate of 2,100 to 2,600 civilian deaths, without citing sources.

• The US Department of Defense has refused to give any sort of estimate on deaths.

• Two news organizations have produced estimates of civilian casualties in just the Baghdad area by canvassing hospitals and tallying their records. The Los Angeles Times reported on May 18 that probably between 1,700 and 2,700 civilians were killed in and around Baghdad. The Knight Ridder agency published an estimate of between 1,100 and 2,355 on May 4.

Dragonlich · 05-24-2003, 11:01 PM

First of all, you seem to be able to predict the future; that must be really helpful in things like lotteries. Are you already a millionaire? No? Then stop predicting an increase in terror, because you JUST CAN'T TELL. For every angry young Arab, there's ten happy Iraqis. For every civilian killed by the US/UK forces, there's thousands killed by Saddam.

Second, this survey is as biased as any other survey you can get your hands on - it's being done by "The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC)"... Hmm, sounds decidedly anti-war to me.

Third, excessive civilian casualties were to be expected, with Saddam hiding his troops and irregulars in civilian areas. The fact that the Nasariyah - Najaf area was particularly hard hit is not that strange, seeing the days-long street-fighting we saw in that area. The coalition troops did what they had to do to win the war; they did not shoot civilians on purpose; they tried to minimize casualties, as can be seen by the *low* number of civilians killed...
If modern weapons were used indiscriminantly, you'd see a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, like during the Iran-Iraq war.

Fourth, cluster bombs... these are primarily used in open fields, against concentrations of enemy troops and armor. Without them, it would be nigh impossible to take these out. Human Rights Watch can say whatever they want about them; fact is that they are still needed, and therefore still used. Using them on civilians is wrong, but so is using any other weapon on them.

Finally... if the casualty rate is 5,000 to 10,000, I'd say it's pretty damn low, especially when one looks at the type of terrain (urban) and type of enemy (murderous bastards using civilians as human shields). During one incident in WW2, a Belgian town was mistakenly attacked by US bombers - more than 10,000 died in that single raid...

But of course, it would have been much better had the US not attacked - after all, then one wouldn't have 10,000 dead civilians during a two-week war, but hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in the next few years at the hands of Saddam. That seems to be a better solution, eh?

The_Dude · 05-25-2003, 07:09 AM

doubt we'll be ever able to get an exact count on this

Kows · 05-25-2003, 07:53 AM

All your crooked pictures, looking good.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0525-03.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-04.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0523-03.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0523-11.htm

for THIS reason?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-10.htm

p.s. common dreams is a portal.

Kows · 05-25-2003, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
...

Terrorism & foriegn domestic problems always take the spotlight, don't they. 4000 people die every hour from starvation. Millions have died in Africa from bloody U.S. sponsered civil wars. Yet we think we've done a good thing when we've destabalized a region, angered many people, lost our international credibility, and brainwashed the American public.
...Not to mention our actions that led to the rise of Saddam in the first place are being repeated.... :-/

Wake up, man. This wasn't right, and it will not have good consequences for the Iraqi people or for our people.

Dragonlich · 05-25-2003, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kows
Terrorism & foriegn domestic problems always take the spotlight, don't they. 4000 people die every hour from starvation. Millions have died in Africa from bloody U.S. sponsered civil wars. Yet we think we've done a good thing when we've destabalized a region, angered many people, lost our international credibility, and brainwashed the American public.
...Not to mention our actions that led to the rise of Saddam in the first place are being repeated.... :-/

Wake up, man. This wasn't right, and it will not have good consequences for the Iraqi people or for our people.

Only time will tell. You seem to be rather pessimistic about this whole affair, where I am more optimistic. You know you are right, and I know you are wrong...

Looking back at our human history, one can say that things are usually not as bad as they seem to be at the time. Your insistence that we "destabilized the region" may be proven wrong; after all, the US removed one of the destabilizing leaders in the area. And they are *not* going to allow a dictator to grab power again.

This war in Iraq was right after all; not doing anything would have been wrong, and dragging the whole thing out was wrong too. It *will* have good consequences for the Iraqis, who now finally have a chance to live in a democratic, safe country - how can this not be good???

The short-term consequences for the Western world may be negative, with many Arabs seeing only what they want to see; however, in the long run, I think this will prove to have positive effects. The problem is that anti-US Arabs will never accept that the US could possibly do something right; if this is the case, why would anyone care that they get angry? They're angry anyway, and nothing we do can change that.

But again, only time will tell who is correct.

Simple_Min · 05-25-2003, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
First of all, you seem to be able to predict the future; that must be really helpful in things like lotteries. Are you already a millionaire? No? Then stop predicting an increase in terror, because you JUST CAN'T TELL. For every angry young Arab, there's ten happy Iraqis. For every civilian killed by the US/UK forces, there's thousands killed by Saddam.

You're right, I'm a big gambler. Perhaps I should talk to Miss Cleo...is that whom you and the foreign policy groups contact for "accurate predictions"? I agree, you CANNOT JUST TELL what will happen.

Quote:

Second, this survey is as biased as any other survey you can get your hands on - it's being done by "The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC)"... Hmm, sounds decidedly anti-war to me.

Forgot to read the part where the Red Crescent and the Red Cross make statements?

Quote:

Fourth, cluster bombs... these are primarily used in open fields, against concentrations of enemy troops and armor. Without them, it would be nigh impossible to take these out. Human Rights Watch can say whatever they want about them; fact is that they are still needed, and therefore still used. Using them on civilians is wrong, but so is using any other weapon on them.

So what's wrong with the bombs when terrorists use bombs with projectiles to maximize damage? Is our cause more just than theirs? What is our cause, by the way? Which part have we had success on? Do not mention to me that we got Iraq....hell due to 10 years of sanctions even Canada could have done what we did. There was no victory over Iraq. Not moral nor technological.

Quote:

But of course, it would have been much better had the US not attacked - after all, then one wouldn't have 10,000 dead civilians during a two-week war, but hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in the next few years at the hands of Saddam. That seems to be a better solution, eh?

I see nothing good in all of this bloodshed. To the people living there they have one type of dictator for another...this time with a considerably lower population. Stating the goal of this war all of the sudden is to "save civilians" is a cop-out. American policy from day 1 has considered civilians as a nonissue.

It seems like if you are against the American invasion then you are pro saddam. Why is that the case? Is life really that simple? Or is it because our Commander in Thief made it so.

Kows · 05-25-2003, 02:57 PM

Good post, Simple_Min. Remember what happened in Vietnam - our 'Democratic Regime' was really an authoritarian dictatorship. To control the moslem population of Iraq, that is what the U.S. government will most likely opt for, in lieu of democracy.

It's already started, too. Just look at the 'democracy' we're setting up. Not exactly what the people of Iraq bargained for.

05-24-2003, 11:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	First of all, you seem to be able to predict the future; that must be really helpful in things like lotteries. Are you already a millionaire? No? Then stop predicting an increase in terror, because you JUST CAN'T TELL. For every angry young Arab, there's ten happy Iraqis. For every civilian killed by the US/UK forces, there's thousands killed by Saddam. Second, this survey is as biased as any other survey you can get your hands on - it's being done by "The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC)"... Hmm, sounds decidedly anti-war to me. Third, excessive civilian casualties were to be expected, with Saddam hiding his troops and irregulars in civilian areas. The fact that the Nasariyah - Najaf area was particularly hard hit is not that strange, seeing the days-long street-fighting we saw in that area. The coalition troops did what they had to do to win the war; they did not shoot civilians on purpose; they tried to minimize casualties, as can be seen by the low number of civilians killed... If modern weapons were used indiscriminantly, you'd see a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, like during the Iran-Iraq war. Fourth, cluster bombs... these are primarily used in open fields, against concentrations of enemy troops and armor. Without them, it would be nigh impossible to take these out. Human Rights Watch can say whatever they want about them; fact is that they are still needed, and therefore still used. Using them on civilians is wrong, but so is using any other weapon on them. Finally... if the casualty rate is 5,000 to 10,000, I'd say it's pretty damn low, especially when one looks at the type of terrain (urban) and type of enemy (murderous bastards using civilians as human shields). During one incident in WW2, a Belgian town was mistakenly attacked by US bombers - more than 10,000 died in that single raid... But of course, it would have been much better had the US not attacked - after all, then one wouldn't have 10,000 dead civilians during a two-week war, but hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in the next few years at the hands of Saddam. That seems to be a better solution, eh? Last edited by Dragonlich; 05-24-2003 at 11:05 PM..

05-25-2003, 07:09 AM	#3 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	doubt we'll be ever able to get an exact count on this __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

05-25-2003, 07:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
Kows Upright Location: Wisconsin	All your crooked pictures, looking good. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0525-03.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-04.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0523-03.htm http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0523-11.htm for THIS reason? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0524-10.htm p.s. common dreams is a portal.

05-25-2003, 02:57 PM	#8 (permalink)
Kows Upright Location: Wisconsin	Good post, Simple_Min. Remember what happened in Vietnam - our 'Democratic Regime' was really an authoritarian dictatorship. To control the moslem population of Iraq, that is what the U.S. government will most likely opt for, in lieu of democracy. It's already started, too. Just look at the 'democracy' we're setting up. Not exactly what the people of Iraq bargained for.